On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 20:56, chad <yandros@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:49 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> 
>>> Perhaps because you wanted to go to the other side of it with C-x C-x,
>>> is the usual reason in my case. […]
>> 
>> […] The C-x C-x case happens to me also, but rarely, and I find that
>> `C-x C-x C-x C-x' is comfortable enough in those cases.

> How repeating C-x C-x helps you to deactivate region (and thus help it
> to survive after DEL)?  In my case it still to be activated regardless
> on the amount of "C-x C-x" repeatings.

My apologies; I was still using some experimental code that deactivated
the region on any C-x C-x but the first (as a side-effect to allowing a prefix
arg to toggle transient-mark-mode). Mea culpa.

> About "rarely": do you understand that now, with current defaults, it
> is only one way to safe using DEL in the macro -- explicitly mark the
> intended to be deleted character by region and only then delete it?
> Otherwise there my occur already activated region and you will delete
> not the single character but the whole half of buffer.  Just by
> occasion and the Murphy Law.

I assume that you mean keyboard macro here, yes?  This usage had not 
occurred to me, as I use elisp far more often than keyboard macros, and
don't use macros for destructive things like DEL.  Perhaps this is why the 
new code works on delete-char-forward and delete-char-backward but 
explicitly not delete-char?  (I admit that I was puzzled by that choice.)

*Chad